Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

How's about the Greek and Hebrew that the KJV is derived from? Don't they carry final authority over the KJV? Of course they do. If they do, then that means the KJV is NOT the final authority.

 

*Why* do you believe this? If someone isn't sure, what is the final authority on this issue?

I find KJV-onlyism TOTALLY confusing. It talks about "preservation", yet cannot identify the "preserved" Bible in 1605, nor why the KJV deviated from it, nor even how a perfectly preserved Bible could even have logically existed in 1605. It cannot explain by what "authority" one picks which Bible is the "final authority". It cannot explain why Isaiah reads one way in the KJV, but differently in Jesus time (see Luke 4:17), if "things that are different are not the same". It cannot explain why different editions of the KJV differ slightly, correcting previous printing and other "errors". It cannot explain by what authority these "errors" were corrected, nor why God didn't get it perfect in 1611 so they wouldn't have to be corrected in the first place. Yes, KJV-onlyism is very confusing - who is the author of this confusion?????

 

Homebound asked, Is there one bible today that is God's word? The answer is no.

 

There are many bibles today that can be considered the Word of God.

 

Christ saved me through it. I have faith in this old book that it is what God was talking about in Psalms 12:6-7. If it were not for the preaching of the King James Bible, I my not be in church today.

The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.

The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts in existence throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 A.D. (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 A.D.

That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.

There is your answer.

 

I'm sorry that you think this. How do you choose from the many bibles out there? Which one do you bring to church to follow the preacher.

HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE SAVED WITHOUT BELIEVING IN GOD'S WORD.

 

A couple of problems:

1) All of these manuscripts he talks of are different than the KJV. Therefore he is making a case that things different than teh KJV are the word of God, which is what we have been saying all along.

2) All of these manuscripts were not used in the KJV. The KJV is based on the TR which was compiled from less than a dozen of this "majority" of manuscripts.

3) He has argued that "Antiochan" texts are the better texts with absolutely no legitimately conclusive arguments. To believe his position, you must accept a number of premises that are not clear and that most people have rejected. He does not have one manuscript that he can prove came from antioch. The vast majority of manuscripts that we have from the early years of the church are Alexandrian and Western in nature, not Byzantine. While he would argue that the heavy use of hte Byzantine type manuscripts meant that they were destroyed by use, this is an argument from silence that must assume its conclusion. It is therefore a worthless argument.

None of which answers the question of this thread: Where does God say that the KJV is the only word of God?

 

Christ saved me through it. I have faith in this old book that it is what God was talking about in Psalms 12:6-7. If it were not for the preaching of the King James Bible, I my not be in church today.

</font>[/QUOTE]Millions of other Christians have the same testimony, only with a different version. Why does *your* personal experience determine the final authority?

The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but that doesn't even address some of the questions I asked, and does a very poor job of answer the others. The KJV is different than ****every**** "Antiochian manuscript". The "Old Latin" and the "Peshitta" also both differ from the KJV in places.

Thus, the confusion remains - who is the author of this confusion?

 

I'm sorry that you think this. How do you choose from the many bibles out there? Which one do you bring to church to follow the preacher. </font>[/QUOTE]Homebound, why do you have a problem with his answer? Isn't it basically the exact same answer of yours about prior to 1611? Your answer about 1605 was "the Antiochian manuscripts" - in other words, there was NOT "one Bible" that was perfect. If one wasn't needed then for God to keep his promise, one isn't needed now for God to keep his promise. You have no reason, other than personal preference, to believe God changed the mode of preservation. You have no reason at ALL to believe "one Bible" is required now when even you admit it wasn't required 400 years ago (less than 20% of church history).

 

I've always found it kinda puzzling when the KJO
bring the Syriac Peshitta in for their defense.
It may be more byzantine than other translations, but it does differ from the TR and KJV in some key texts:

John 1:18 Peshitta: "the only begotten God"

John 7:53-8:11 Peshitta: omits

1 Tim 3:16; Peshitta: reads "who" or "which"

The Peshitta actually supports the Alexandrian readings in those texts (2 of which are being debated in current threads). And it does so in a key area: it provides an early witness from a geographical location outside of Egypt.

-kman

 

Answer me this,where,when,and WHY did you lose faith in the KJV?? Why is the KJV(not the cop out of "KJVO")the focal point? Why not any of the over 200 conflicting authorities out there the disagree with the Greek Receptus itself in over 200 places in the New-Testament?

[ February 12, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Answer me this,where,when,and WHY did you lose faith in the KJV??

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

I never started.... A+ effort for trying to trip me up

 

Never mind, you wouldn't get the point if you were impaled on it.

 

To my knowledge, there is no one here who doesn't believe the KJV. We all believe the KJV. That is not the issue.

The KJV is the focal point because there are some here who are trying to tell us that it alone is the word of God. The KJV itself disagrees with the Greek TR in a number of places, especially depending on which TR you choose to follow. So if your line of thinking is correct, you must decide which of the KJVs or which of the TRs is the actual perfect word of God.

 

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it.

Personally I like the KJV so much i keep
THREE of the most common editions by my
computer: the KJV1611, KJV1769, and KJV1873.

 

It is the word of God. The MVs contain the word of God.

Have you seen the Greek TR? Another thing, I keep seeing 1611, 1739, etc. King James Bible dates. The King James Bible was published in 1611(base date), there have been textual and spelling corrections, but no changes of the word meaning(that I know of).

Not to get off the subject, but if I may, ask one question for my personal study. Brother and Sisters here that don't hold the King James Bible to be the final authority, do you attend church were contemporary christian music is played?

 

HomeBound said:

Not to get off the subject, but if I may, ask one question for my personal study. Brother and Sisters here that don't hold the King James Bible to be the final authority, do you attend church were contemporary christian music is played?

Instead of asking leading questions, why don' you just come right out and tell us what you are trying to insinuate?